Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

This one's going to really floor you - Flynn failed to disclose being paid by Russia for his RT engagement in 2015! It is required for a security clearance. The time frame I'm referring to is when Obama officials were warning Trump about Flynn.

The counter-narrative is that Flynn cleared his appearance at the RT dinner with the DIA ahead of time, and debriefed them afterwards. This information was shared in a classified briefing to the Senate Judiciary Committee in May 2017.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-08-25 CEG to DOD DIA (unclassified cover letter to classified Flynn letter).pdf

 

18 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

This is comparable to doing a Goggle search to find out the truth about somebody. The federal databases are useful to the extent that information may come up but if they were so good that's exactly where they would start. "Flynn, long-serving military man and holder of security clearances" had lied about being paid by Russia (RT) on his SF86 disclosure and can't claim ignorance about it.

The Crossfire Razor team checked the FBI databases, the databases of all other relevant agencies, utilized a Confidential Human Source (Halper - who passed along a phony story which also made it to Steele, and is being sued by woman in UK over this story). The team also checked on associates of Flynn, and specifically conducted analysis of “known CR travel” I.e. the RT dinner. Still:

“Following the compilation of the above information, the CR team determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

 

18 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

The investigations, already reviewed by the IG for proper predication, were not closed. That would mean "all clear". You know this.

The file was kept open on instructions of Comey/McCabe.Both are known to have been meeting around this same time with Obama and Clapper’s DNI office specifically regarding Flynn. Reason for suspicion was at that time limited to the very thin reed known as the Logan Act. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

This says nothing about it. Why did you post the link? There's no contention in the letter he disclosed he was paid for the appearance. The Oversight and Reform Committee said this in February 16, 2017 letter. All of this occurred after CR was to have closed the investigation into Flynn which further supports keeping the investigation open. It's also referring to what I suppose would be a database search which as I've said is in no way conclusive. Not that it really matters but I would imagine the Obama administration were aware of Flynn's activities and concerned about them in regards to security clearances. This is from a letter from Chavetz/Cummings et al to MD French at Leading Authorities.

 

flynn capture.JPG

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

The investigations, already reviewed by the IG for proper predication, were not closed. That would mean "all clear". You know this.

I misspoke on this. I meant to say it does not mean all clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

“Following the compilation of the above information, the CR team determined that CROSSFIRE RAZOR was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”

I'm not going to look it up but IIRC this was referred out to a separate investigation/prosecution but it doesn't matter if it was because because any new discoveries could be referred back.

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

This says nothing about it. Why did you post the link? There's no contention in the letter he disclosed he was paid for the appearance. The Oversight and Reform Committee said this in February 16, 2017 letter. All of this occurred after CR was to have closed the investigation into Flynn which further supports keeping the investigation open.

The testimony referred in the Grassley letter dates to May 2017. His claims that the testimony favourable to Flynn refers, according to reporters who have received leaks on this issue, to communications (Flynn/DIA) in 2015 regarding RT dinner. 

The FBI C/I team began work on the Crossfire Razor file with three "facts":

"the FBI predicated the counterintelligence investigation of him on “an articulable factual basis” that consisted of three facts: Mr. Flynn’s service as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, his publicly documented connection to state-affiliated Russian entities, and the fact that he had traveled to Russia in December 2015."

Hard to believe that the RT dinner wasn't thoroughly checked out to the tune of "no derogatory information". 

The available documentation shows that, on January 5 2017, Flynn had been fully cleared of possible compromising relationships with Russian nationals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

The testimony referred in the Grassley letter dates to May 2017. His claims that the testimony favourable to Flynn refers, according to reporters who have received leaks on this issue, to communications (Flynn/DIA) in 2015 regarding RT dinner. 

The FBI C/I team began work on the Crossfire Razor file with three "facts":

"the FBI predicated the counterintelligence investigation of him on “an articulable factual basis” that consisted of three facts: Mr. Flynn’s service as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, his publicly documented connection to state-affiliated Russian entities, and the fact that he had traveled to Russia in December 2015."

Hard to believe that the RT dinner wasn't thoroughly checked out to the tune of "no derogatory information". 

The available documentation shows that, on January 5 2017, Flynn had been fully cleared of possible compromising relationships with Russian nationals. 

"The time frame I'm referring to is when Obama officials were warning Trump about Flynn. "

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/05/reality-check-susan-rice-email-shows-obama

May 21, 2020

CNN's John Avlon does a reality check segment on the Susan Rice email released this week.

"In search of a scandal to fit the slogan 'Obamagate,' earlier this week Republican senators requested that the acting director of national intelligence declassify an email that a former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice had sent herself on Inauguration Day," he said.

"The implication is that this would be a smoking gun that unlocked the conspiracy to spy on the incoming administration. But rarely have we seen the supposed smoking gun fizzle as fast as the declassified Susan Rice email. It memorialized the Oval Office meeting which included then-Vice President Joe Biden after an intelligence briefing on Russia's interference in our election."

The issue, he said, was the then-undisclosed contacts between Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -- which got Flynn fired for lying 24 days into the administration and led to his guilty plea before his prosecution was abandoned by Barr this month.

"Instead of wrongdoing, Rice's email said that President Obama emphasized his continued commitment to ensuring every aspect of this issue was handled by intelligence and law enforcement communities by the book," Avlon said. (Oh, oops! So much for the big scandal!)

"According to Rice, President Obama stressed that he's not asking about initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. In the portion that had previously been classified, Obama asked then-FBI Director James Comey if concerns about Flynn's contacts with the Russians meant that the National Security Council should not pass sensitive information to Flynn. Rice wrote that Comey replied 'potentially,' adding he had no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak. But he noted that the communication level is unusual.

"Yes, it is unusual to have an incoming national security advisor have repeated undisclosed contacts with an ambassador from a country that had just interfered in our elections to benefit the president-elect. As summed up, the Rice email shows the Obama team were caught red-handed following the rules. Now in a sane political world, Republican senators would have made like Emily Litella and said --

Never mind.

"But we live in the Trump era. So instead, Senator Ted Cruz tweeted, 'Wow, ongoing spying from an outgoing POTUS, on an ingoing POTUS directed by Obama himself is unprecedented ' -- nope. The email showed nothing of the sort. But the tweet showed how little facts matter in this silly season.

"Now, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell just said he's backing a new round of subpoenas against Obama administration officials. But if the truth is what he's really after, McConnell could request the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, as Rice and others have suggested -- or explain his resistance to making a bipartisan statement condemning the Russia interference before the elections, as the latest Senate Intelligence committee report shows.

"Or we could all just admit that this effort to investigate the Obama administration is an attempt to distract and deflect from the Trump administration's own self-inflicted scandals. And that's your reality check."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Flynn-Kisylak transcripts now available:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29 ODNI to CEG RHJ (Flynn Transcripts).pdf

The very brief discussion of sanctions/expulsions is the third order of business, following the UN Security Council Israel vote and a discussion of Syria. The transcripts show both men directly acknowledging that the Obama Administration remains the representative of the US government, ahead of the January inauguration.

The discussion of Syria was not previously known. Flynn expresses position that the Trump admin will be focussed on eliminating radical Islamist/terrorist factions in Syria and sees opportunity for cooperation with Russian Federation on that front. Kisylak mentions plans for a conference (to be held in Astana) to discuss future strategy for resolution of conflict in Syria, which he notes will take place after the inauguration. Flynn sees common ground, but notes any participation would have to be approved by the new administration. Kisylak says there will be an opportunity for Putin and Trump to discuss US/Russia relations after Trump becomes president.

What sticks out immediately is the careful language acknowledging that the Obama admin is still calling the shots. This makes the suggestion that the Logan Act might have somehow applied even more absurd. Certainly the officials from DNI and FBI who pushed the Logan Act knew this full well. 

So was Flynn's expressed interest in potentially working with Russia to eliminate the jihadist militias operating in Syria the actual sticking point which led to the effort by FBI, apparently at behest of senior Obama Administration officials, to eliminate Flynn from position of National security advisor? This is very possible. No actual cooperation in fact occurred, and the video-call Kisylak spoke of arranging between Putin and Trump, after the swearing-in, never actually took place amidst a deliberately concocted media hysteria based on these Flynn-Kisylak phone calls.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Flynn-Kisylak transcripts now available:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29 ODNI to CEG RHJ (Flynn Transcripts).pdf

The very brief discussion of sanctions/expulsions is the third order of business, following the UN Security Council Israel vote and a discussion of Syria. The transcripts show both men directly acknowledging that the Obama Administration remains the representative of the US government, ahead of the January inauguration.

 

Hahaha Flynn has said he didn't even know about the sanctions/expulsions when he called! Hahahaha! You're killin me Jeff!

Edited by Bob Ness
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Flynn-Kisylak transcripts now available:

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05-29 ODNI to CEG RHJ (Flynn Transcripts).pdf

The very brief discussion of sanctions/expulsions is the third order of business, following the UN Security Council Israel vote and a discussion of Syria. The transcripts show both men directly acknowledging that the Obama Administration remains the representative of the US government, ahead of the January inauguration.

The discussion of Syria was not previously known. Flynn expresses position that the Trump admin will be focussed on eliminating radical Islamist/terrorist factions in Syria and sees opportunity for cooperation with Russian Federation on that front. Kisylak mentions plans for a conference (to be held in Astana) to discuss future strategy for resolution of conflict in Syria, which he notes will take place after the inauguration. Flynn sees common ground, but notes any participation would have to be approved by the new administration. Kisylak says there will be an opportunity for Putin and Trump to discuss US/Russia relations after Trump becomes president.

What sticks out immediately is the careful language acknowledging that the Obama admin is still calling the shots. This makes the suggestion that the Logan Act might have somehow applied even more absurd. Certainly the officials from DNI and FBI who pushed the Logan Act knew this full well. 

So was Flynn's expressed interest in potentially working with Russia to eliminate the jihadist militias operating in Syria the actual sticking point which led to the effort by FBI, apparently at behest of senior Obama Administration officials, to eliminate Flynn from position of National security advisor? This is very possible. No actual cooperation in fact occurred, and the video-call Kisylak spoke of arranging between Putin and Trump, after the swearing-in, never actually took place amidst a deliberately concocted media hysteria based on these Flynn-Kisylak phone calls.

 

The 2016 Trump/Flynn position on Syria was, essentially, correct, IMO.  I believed that much in November of 2016.  Every time "ISIS" was accused of a terrorist attack in those days,  (in Europe or the U.S.) the Obama administration would bomb the Syrian Army!

It was obvious that our real objective in Syria was to overthrow Assad and Balkanize the area.

Operation Timber Sycamore was terrible policy, as was the Obama administration's Neocon military policy to destabilize Libya.

But why did Flynn lie about his December 29, 2016 phone call to Kisylak?

From the transcript* of the phone call, Flynn was actively trying to mitigate the effect of the newly-imposed Obama administration sanctions, imposed in response to Russian "cyber stuff"-- i.e., interference in the U.S. elections.

Flynn wants to convey the following [to Moscow]: Do not allow this administration to box us in right now! Kislyak says the have conveyed it very clearly. Flynn: So, depending on what actions they take over this current issue of cyber stuff, where they are looking like they are going to dismiss some number of Russians out of the country. I understand all that and I understand that the information that they have and all that. But I ask Russia to do is to not, if anything, I know you have to have some sort of action, to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. Do you follow me?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Now that it looks like Flynn prosecution/sentencing is done with, we may be getting closer to some indication on what it was exactly about him that the Obama people were so determined to prevent. Unless there is something still in the shadows, it appears to boil down to a desire to prevent cooperation with the Russians in finally flushing all the UN-designated terrorist jihadist types out of Syria and allowing that country to rebuild. As it stands, the Americans running Syria policy have maintained continuity with Obama era and have succeeded in preventing any cooperation, succeeded in a rough partition of the country, and are on record as boasting of their intentions of keeping Syria a shattered basket-case (with sanctions) and providing a "quagmire" for the Russians. Real humanitarians. It actually is a criminal foreign policy.

The MSM commentariat continues to posit that the dismissal of the charges is outrageous, and continue a steadfast refusal to consider the scope of the exculpatory evidence which has been unearthed since a prosecutor was assigned to look into the case. They have never acknowledged that Flynn's troubles began with an entirely bogus story promoted by Stefan Halper - who also played an undercover, if not sinister, role with Carter Page and Papadopoulos. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

More on Halper - who may have been the source of the illegal Flynn leak to Ignatius of The Washington Post in January 2017. The Durham investigation has, apparently, looked closely at Halper and the so-called "Cambridge Four" as described in this article. 

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies-who-hijacked-america

The machinations in court, which have been continuing after the Flynn judge balked rather than follow the DOJ instructions, may climax tomorrow. Either way, the story of the deliberate take-down of Flynn to disrupt a newly elected administration will eventually be understood to a wider audience.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Volume Five of the Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence's investigation of alleged malign "Russian activity" to tip the 2016 election in Trump's favour has been released to a predictable chorus of "hosannas" from the mainstream media, whose journalists prove yet again they don't know what they are talking about and don't read primary sources. Here's a quick look at how three Russiagate personalities are dealt with in the Report:

Stefan Halper

The name Stefan Halper appears nowhere in the almost 1000 page report, despite his being ubiquitous in the Flynn, Carter Page, and Papadopoulos “Russian links” narratives. This is particularly curious by way of the Report’s discussion of Flynn’s “Connections To Russia” (p753), as it was Halper’s false accusation asserting Flynn had conducted an affair with a Russian intelligence officer in August 2016 which led directly to the opening of the Crossfire Razor (Flynn) component of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation. 

 

 

Joseph Mifsud

“Mifsud played a central role in Papadopoulos’ attempts to engage the Russian government on behalf of the Trump campaign.” However,the Committee's awareness of Mifsud's activities is limited to document production and testimony from other witnesses, information from the Executive Branch, and open source research.” (P468)  This is remarkable, as the entire Crossfire Hurricane investigation was said to be predicated on Papadopoulos’ prescient knowledge of Clinton emails - information generally agreed he received from Mifsud.  That is, Mifsud was a “central figure” in the entire imbroglio yet the Senate Subcommittee on Intelligence cannot, apparently, locate let alone interview the man. It has been averred that the FBI did in fact interview him in February 2017, but this transcript apparently was not shared (or was not sought) by the Subcommittee. Independent researchers have demonstrated that Mifsud appears far more associated with western intelligence operations than a possible Russian agent, but the Subcommittee Report chooses to portray him as “highly suspicious” and his activity consistent with “intelligence tradecraft” that matched “GRU information disclosure operations.” (P466) In other words, Mifsud’s alleged ties to Russian intelligence networks is admittedly entirely circumstantial and unverified, while Mifsud’s motivations - crucial to the entire “Russian collusion” narrative - remain entirely undisclosed.

 

 

Konstantin Kilimnik

The supposed proof that Kilimnik is a “Russian intelligence officer” initially appeared as an opaque footnote in the Mueller Report, referring to FBI testimony from an inaccessible court proceeding. The Subcommittee Report does not follow this up, but instead flatly asserts such tag because it claims to have found “reliable evidence suggesting that Kilimnik…is part of a cadre of individuals…who implement Kremlin-directed influence operations.” (emphasis added) The Report then refers to its "intelligence officer" ID as in fact merely an “assessment” based on a “body of information”, most of which is redacted except for a brief reference to an SCO report which in turn asserted Kilimnik had “ties” to Russian intelligence services. Further unredacted “proof” consists of Kilimnik’s expressed opinions on matters which were “similar in nature to Russian counter-narratives”, and hearsay dating back to his employ at IRI.     (P. 158-164) Elsewhere, the Report highlights information it claims is “consistent with Kilimnik's affiliation with the Russian intelligence services because they closely align with Russian intelligence tradecraft.” That is incredibly weak, yet the assertion is now presented as "established fact".

This has predictably generated a new round of feverish assumption centered on the Mueller probe's theory that the Russian collusion effort was directed out of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's Ukraine office, where Kilimnik served as business partner since about 2005. The Report promotes this thinking by noting that discussions between Manafort and Kilimnik regarding Manafort’s work as Trump campaign manager centered on rather obvious strategies such as emphasizing Clinton's negatives and a concentration on identified battleground states (p80), plus the often referred sharing of campaign polling data (which supposedly informed the inane Facebook ads). The Report concedes that the investigators have no idea what, if anything, Kilimnik might have done with the such data (“The Committee was unable to determine Kilimnik's actions after receiving the data") (p82).  

 

In a minor aside during discussion of Wikileaks, the Report acknowledges the Trump Campaign “treated the (Wikileaks) releases as just another form of opposition research.” This seems to be the case for all instances of alleged "collusion". The willful mischaracterization of this essentially reactive posture has been the signature position all along.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...